Choice of engine lube oil

[vyv_cox]

so I cannot get stressed about TBN

Inappropriate TBN is the main reason why I believe that using higher grades in old engines is bad for them. Originally it was a large boatyard in the north of UK who told me of their experience that bore wear was heavy in yachts using high grade lubricants. They advised all their customers to use an API CD, at that time Shell Rotella C (spec now changed).

Thanks to my contacts in research I was able to take this info further. My good friend and ex colleague has carried out hundreds of wear tests on lubricants with different chemistries. He confirms that high TBN in conjunction with low surface temperature in the sliding contact promotes higher wear rates.

As others have said, there is loads of experience in historical agricultural and automotive operation confirming that new oil and old engines don't mix.

 

[Chris_Robb]

I need to change the oil on my mermaid melody 90 HP. It's a bog standard naturally aspirated marinisation of the Ford New Holland tractor engine.

I have a chance here (Turkey) to buy some Castrol Tection Turbomax at a discount. It's the right viscosity at 15W - 40.

Given that I can get it cheaper than the recommended Castrol GTX is there anything wrong with using it? I suspect that it's over-rated for what I want it for and that I'd just be wasting its no-doubt excellent hi-tech qualities.

Is there anything I'm missing here?

Hi Bob

I have been following this fred..... Absolutely bloody confusing!

Looking up Castrol Tection Turbomax, its rating is CH -4. I would stick to a maximum grade CF -4 and ensure that it is mineral oil and not a semi synthetic.

I just have a rule that I find a CD or up to CF -4 mineral oil. I would not be prepared to risk the extra bore wear etc said to be the result of too high spec oils.... CD is easily available in Greece, so I would be surprised if it was not available in Turkey.

 

[Heckler]

Inappropriate TBN is the main reason why I believe that using higher grades in old engines is bad for them. Originally it was a large boatyard in the north of UK who told me of their experience that bore wear was heavy in yachts using high grade lubricants. They advised all their customers to use an API CD, at that time Shell Rotella C (spec now changed).

Thanks to my contacts in research I was able to take this info further. My good friend and ex colleague has carried out hundreds of wear tests on lubricants with different chemistries. He confirms that high TBN in conjunction with low surface temperature in the sliding contact promotes higher wear rates.

As others have said, there is loads of experience in historical agricultural and automotive operation confirming that new oil and old engines don't mix.

And that neatly takes us to bore glazing?
Stu

 

[Latestarter1]

Inappropriate TBN is the main reason why I believe that using higher grades in old engines is bad for them. Originally it was a large boatyard in the north of UK who told me of their experience that bore wear was heavy in yachts using high grade lubricants. They advised all their customers to use an API CD, at that time Shell Rotella C (spec now changed).

Thanks to my contacts in research I was able to take this info further. My good friend and ex colleague has carried out hundreds of wear tests on lubricants with different chemistries. He confirms that high TBN in conjunction with low surface temperature in the sliding contact promotes higher wear rates.

As others have said, there is loads of experience in historical agricultural and automotive operation confirming that new oil and old engines don't mix.

Without being engine specific this is dangerous and slightly anecdotal territory and the people at Ethyl have never published a paper to support your theory, without data this is just 'dock talk'. CD oils did cause us wear issues in durability testing as the service rating it better suits roller cam followers not mushroom tappets which is addressed by the SJ service rating

I can state as a matter of fact that old Perkins 6.354/236, Ford Dover/Dorsets' and older 60 and 70 Series Volvos and Cummins service approval specifically extends retrospectively to triple nickels and VTA 903's of the 60's and 70's, all are totally suited to ACEA E5.

As to the comment by Snowleopard

OP requested advice on using inexpensive and readily available on use of Castrol Techtion Turbo in old Ford 2722 direct injection engine instead of expensive Castrol GTX. Advice given that the Techtion was actually perfect for his application and better than GTX which is a CF rated oil suitable for IDI engines, go for it!.

Ford 2722 generally had a 10 to 12 litre oil pan dependent on deep pan option.

Using correct lubricant is cheap insurance. Manufacturers do not take individual approvals lightly, however ALL engines have a fuse in their design somewhere and you have to protect your turf. The major lube players in the market confine themselves too strictly to defined base stocks, the marginal’s purchase whatever comes up on the Spot Market. Going back to manufactures individual approvals the tests cost lube refiners a fortune, the bit part players use a technique called read across to list their approval which is not the same as actual testing.

A typical overhead wear test carried out by AWRE Harwell, yep you read it correctly, the place where they assemble nuclear war heads have engine test facility. Process is simple, you send them a brand new engine, they strip say the cylinder head and irradiate individual valve components with slightly different isotopes, rebuild the motor and run a type test cycle on their dyno. Oil is analysed according to tiny trace isotopes which indicate exactly which components are wearing in what ratio to each other. If the results are in line with manufacturers predictions you bank the approval. This is an expensive process which the bit part lube players neatly side step.

Going back to the old Ford Dover naturally aspirated motor, NA motors often have higher top ring temperatures than their turbocharged brothers. Rapid overhead wear, bore polish, camshaft spalling, valve drop, they are all waiting in the wings ready to bite the reckless at surprisingly low hours.

Mid range marine diesels in the 300 to 450 Hp node cost between 14 to 18K each, Fram or Crosland filters and some ASDA lube may be OK for the old builders Transit but if you cannot afford to do the job correctly you cannot afford your boating habit

 

[lw395]

Latestarter, what is your view on synthetic oils?

It's interesting to contrast what people write on boating forums with motorcycle forums.
To paraphrase a post from a classic bike nut,
Classic bikes run on classic oils. And classically wear out quickly...

 

[Ubergeekian]

A typical overhead wear test carried out by AWRE Harwell, yep you read it correctly, the place where they assemble nuclear war heads have engine test facility.

Point of information. Harwell is not allowed, by law, to do any work on atomic warheads - its remit is exclusively civilian use of fission. Perhaps you were confusing AERE Harwell (Atomic Energy Research Establishment) with AWRE Aldermaston (Atomic Weapons Research Establishment)?

 

[Heckler]

Without being engine specific this is dangerous and slightly anecdotal territory and the people at Ethyl have never published a paper to support your theory, without data this is just 'dock talk'. CD oils did cause us wear issues in durability testing as the service rating it better suits roller cam followers not mushroom tappets which is addressed by the SJ service rating

I can state as a matter of fact that old Perkins 6.354/236, Ford Dover/Dorsets' and older 60 and 70 Series Volvos and Cummins service approval specifically extends retrospectively to triple nickels and VTA 903's of the 60's and 70's, all are totally suited to ACEA E5.

As to the comment by Snowleopard

OP requested advice on using inexpensive and readily available on use of Castrol Techtion Turbo in old Ford 2722 direct injection engine instead of expensive Castrol GTX. Advice given that the Techtion was actually perfect for his application and better than GTX which is a CF rated oil suitable for IDI engines, go for it!.

Ford 2722 generally had a 10 to 12 litre oil pan dependent on deep pan option.

Using correct lubricant is cheap insurance. Manufacturers do not take individual approvals lightly, however ALL engines have a fuse in their design somewhere and you have to protect your turf. The major lube players in the market confine themselves too strictly to defined base stocks, the marginal’s purchase whatever comes up on the Spot Market. Going back to manufactures individual approvals the tests cost lube refiners a fortune, the bit part players use a technique called read across to list their approval which is not the same as actual testing.

A typical overhead wear test carried out by AWRE Harwell, yep you read it correctly, the place where they assemble nuclear war heads have engine test facility. Process is simple, you send them a brand new engine, they strip say the cylinder head and irradiate individual valve components with slightly different isotopes, rebuild the motor and run a type test cycle on their dyno. Oil is analysed according to tiny trace isotopes which indicate exactly which components are wearing in what ratio to each other. If the results are in line with manufacturers predictions you bank the approval. This is an expensive process which the bit part lube players neatly side step.

Going back to the old Ford Dover naturally aspirated motor, NA motors often have higher top ring temperatures than their turbocharged brothers. Rapid overhead wear, bore polish, camshaft spalling, valve drop, they are all waiting in the wings ready to bite the reckless at surprisingly low hours.

Mid range marine diesels in the 300 to 450 Hp node cost between 14 to 18K each, Fram or Crosland filters and some ASDA lube may be OK for the old builders Transit but if you cannot afford to do the job correctly you cannot afford your boating habit

You talk about anecdotal territory and yet then go on to tell anecdotes!
anecdote:"CD oils did cause us wear issues in durability testing as the service rating it better suits roller cam followers not mushroom tappets which is addressed by the SJ service rating"
anecdote: "I can state as a matter of fact that old Perkins 6.354/236, Ford Dover/Dorsets' and older 60 and 70 Series Volvos and Cummins service approval specifically extends retrospectively to triple nickels and VTA 903's of the 60's and 70's, all are totally suited to ACEA E5."
anecdote: "however ALL engines have a fuse in their design somewhere and you have to protect your turf. The major lube players in the market confine themselves too strictly to defined base stocks, the marginal’s purchase whatever comes up on the Spot Market. Going back to manufactures individual approvals the tests cost lube refiners a fortune, the bit part players use a technique called read across to list their approval which is not the same as actual testing."
anecdote: "A typical overhead wear test carried out by AWRE Harwell, yep you read it correctly, the place where they assemble nuclear war heads have engine test facility. Process is simple, you send them a brand new engine, they strip say the cylinder head and irradiate individual valve components with slightly different isotopes, rebuild the motor and run a type test cycle on their dyno. Oil is analysed according to tiny trace isotopes which indicate exactly which components are wearing in what ratio to each other. If the results are in line with manufacturers predictions you bank the approval. This is an expensive process which the bit part lube players neatly side step."
(Oh and neatly debunked by a following poster, the name of the establishment is wrong!)
anecdote: "Going back to the old Ford Dover naturally aspirated motor, NA motors often have higher top ring temperatures than their turbocharged brothers. Rapid overhead wear, bore polish, camshaft spalling, valve drop, they are all waiting in the wings ready to bite the reckless at surprisingly low hours."
And last of all you go on to denigrate major players in the filter industry and a major player in the retail industry!!
My anecdote is as follows, many years ago I was involved in the development of the 8 valve Weslake twin cylinder motorcycle racing engine. We used to use Castrol R, carefully warmed up before the race for "maximum" protection. We suffered badly from worn rocker components. Weslake came back to us and told us to use a bog std straight SAE 30 engine oil, changed every meeting. We ended up using Morrisons of Shrewsbury straight 30 oil. Problem solved!
But of course not having a string of employers to list, what do I know?
Stu

 

[vyv_cox]

Without being engine specific this is dangerous and slightly anecdotal territory and the people at Ethyl have never published a paper to support your theory, without data this is just 'dock talk'.

There's plenty of data but not in the public domain. Oil companies are not in the habit of publishing very much of their research data.

A typical overhead wear test carried out by AWRE Harwell, yep you read it correctly, the place where they assemble nuclear war heads have engine test facility. Process is simple, you send them a brand new engine, they strip say the cylinder head and irradiate individual valve components with slightly different isotopes, rebuild the motor and run a type test cycle on their dyno. Oil is analysed according to tiny trace isotopes which indicate exactly which components are wearing in what ratio to each other. If the results are in line with manufacturers predictions you bank the approval. This is an expensive process which the bit part lube players neatly side step.

Shell have been doing this, and a lot of more remarkable stuff, at Thornton for the past 20 years to my certain knowledge. Once again, oil companies nowadays don't say much in public. In the late 1970s/early 1980s you could guarantee that the Leeds-Lyon Tribology conference would have half a dozen papers from Shell Research, indeed I once gave one myself. Nowadays technical papers from the big companies are quite rare.

but if you cannot afford to do the job correctly you cannot afford your boating habit

The mistake that many owners make is to assume that the most expensive oil will be the best. Just not true.

 

[Chris_Robb]

Here here Vyv.

 

[lw395]

.....My anecdote is as follows, many years ago I was involved in the development of the 8 valve Weslake twin cylinder motorcycle racing engine. We used to use Castrol R, carefully warmed up before the race for "maximum" protection. We suffered badly from worn rocker components. Weslake came back to us and told us to use a bog std straight SAE 30 engine oil, changed every meeting. We ended up using Morrisons of Shrewsbury straight 30 oil. Problem solved!
But of course not having a string of employers to list, what do I know?
Stu

Is that Morrison's supermarket or Morris Oils?

I think peeps on here are hoping to get a bit more than one weekend out of their oil.
Morris Oils website seems to suggest synthetic is the thing to use in all high performance bike engines now...

 

[MrCramp]

The typical operation of yacht auxiliary engines, and in many cases their design, has barely changed in many years, thus there was no reason to change the oil specification.

Vyv I never before appreciated how you made this complicated subject appear so simple when you have been giving advice in the past. Many thanks for the contributions you have made to the forum, they are much appreciated by the silent majority.
Paul

 

[Heckler]

Is that Morrison's supermarket or Morris Oils?

I think peeps on here are hoping to get a bit more than one weekend out of their oil.
Morris Oils website seems to suggest synthetic is the thing to use in all high performance bike engines now...

Morris's my mistake, as to racing bikes, anyone who knows anything about bikes knows that the Weslake was a 70s bike engine which eventually became the RGB Weslake the British twin which whopped the works Ducatis in the Battle of the Twins. Basically an upgraded Triumph which Gary developed in to a world beater, the metals are still basically 70s stuff so synthetic oil? Hmmm.
Stu

 

[Latestarter1]

Latestarter, what is your view on synthetic oils?

It's interesting to contrast what people write on boating forums with motorcycle forums.
To paraphrase a post from a classic bike nut,
Classic bikes run on classic oils. And classically wear out quickly...

I am versatile as an egg on this one.

Certain manufacturers recommend synthetic lubes just for low temperature operation others have a more prescriptive view for example Yanmar Europe, for example, on certain models i.e LYA they completely disapprove use of synthetic lube, but have a real simple approach to minerals, which is simply 15W40 CD though to CI and classifications in between are all approved, simple as that. However BY engines (BMW) base require a specific synthetic 5W40 with BMW approval.

If the manufacturer approves synthetics they generally retain the same drain limits as mineral lubes, therefore the service cost rises dramatically as synthetic often three times the price of mineral with zero benefit. However the trouble sets in when synthetic lube suppliers encourage extending the oil drain interval in order to address the cost imbalance, it is then that things start to spin out of control.

Let me explain, I occasionally survey a sand dredge with Cummins B Series which powers the bow thruster which runs constantly whist ship is on station dredging. Lube service slots in with scheduled down vessel down time between 3,200 hrs and 3,500 hours. Engine life to overhaul (TBO), before reaching blow-by limit is between 22,500/24,00 hours.

Operator wanted to look at using synthetic lube, however to keep costs in check we needed to allow for worse case of a 7,000 hr lube service. We did oil analysis and the TBN/TAN crossover point was far too close to call, the other drawback with synthetics is the fact that molecules are of similar size totally unlike mineral lube this leads to a faster decline in TBN when oil is close to its limit.

My simple view is that unless use of synthetic is in the manual I see no use for it.

Yes I am paranoid about lube filters, dependent on application, manufacturers own or Donaldson, Baldwin, Fleetguard and Mann & Hummel. Other makes mentioned do not come close and certainly not major players in the filter market as referred to here, could never meet Ford Motor Co quality certification and for a limited time JCB learned the hard way, they used one of these companies for their own brand lube filters, however clogging led to premature oil pressure relief valve opening, taking out many engines. No apologies in a word junk.

 

[Tranona]

This is all very interesting, but I think you are living in a completely different world from most people here.

The vast majority operate very simple low horsepower engines with outputs per litre well under 40hp. They run for maybe 100-150 hours a year and during that time rarely exceed 75% of their rated output. most of their life they are stationary after running for short periods and receive minimum attention.

So the issue is not about wear in heavy usage regimes, but protecting the engine in this on-off stop start pattern of usage. The use of basic mineral oils, changed along with filters at regular intervals seems to work and engines die from neglect or failure of the ancilliary equipment rather than the engine itself.

Your esoteric discussion on large, high output heavy duty engines may be of more interest to our friends on the MOBO forum.

 

[ytd]

I tend to use synthetic oils as a safety margin. When the boatyard moves your boat without opening the raw water seacock how long will the engine run with no cooling and a disintergrated impeller before it seizes. The mover was listening to his ipod and didn't hear our feeble temperature alarm. Synthetics will give you a few more minutes.

Some old engines will weep badly when synthetic oil is used but if they don't I don't see any problem with using them. I swapped to synthetics in a vintage racing porsche which weeped for the first meet then ran perfectly afterwards 15C cooler with no smoke when previously there had been lots of smoke on overrun.

 

[Latestarter1]

This is all very interesting, but I think you are living in a completely different world from most people here.

The vast majority operate very simple low horsepower engines with outputs per litre well under 40hp. They run for maybe 100-150 hours a year and during that time rarely exceed 75% of their rated output. most of their life they are stationary after running for short periods and receive minimum attention.

So the issue is not about wear in heavy usage regimes, but protecting the engine in this on-off stop start pattern of usage. The use of basic mineral oils, changed along with filters at regular intervals seems to work and engines die from neglect or failure of the ancilliary equipment rather than the engine itself.

Your esoteric discussion on large, high output heavy duty engines may be of more interest to our friends on the MOBO forum.

A very fair comment, however the post started with request for advice regarding Ford 2722 which is a mid range, not heavy duty diesel engine and oil availability in Turkey to which I gave a simple direct reply.....then the warfare started because I had presumed to encroach on the resident experts territory, no matter.

Kubota, Mitsubishi, Shibura and Yanmar indirect cooled small engines require very little in the way of special attention and pretty much last forever.

As to YTD you will gain no safety margin against piston pick up due to overheat with synthetic lubes, just marketing hype. Better to just leave sea cock open.

 

[vyv_cox]

....then the warfare started because I had presumed to encroach on the resident experts territory, no matter.

That is an absurd interpretation of reality. I suggest you look at the thread again from the top.

 

[Tranona]

That is an absurd interpretation of reality. I suggest you look at the thread again from the top.

Well said - my subtle hint obviously had no effect but maybe the more direct approach will!

 

[Ubergeekian]

A....then the warfare started because I had presumed to encroach on the resident experts territory, no matter.

The resident expert has a long and honourable track record, here and elsewhere, of thoroughly sound engineering interpreted for boat owners. You aren't going to persuade us away from him with enormously long and rambling postings (the word logorrhoea springs to mind, I'm afraid) which seem more concerned with your employment history than the matter at hand.

I'm voting Vyv. At least I know what he's trying to say.

 

[Latestarter1]

I need to change the oil on my mermaid melody 90 HP. It's a bog standard naturally aspirated marinisation of the Ford New Holland tractor engine.

I have a chance here (Turkey) to buy some Castrol Tection Turbomax at a discount. It's the right viscosity at 15W - 40.

Given that I can get it cheaper than the recommended Castrol GTX is there anything wrong with using it? I suspect that it's over-rated for what I want it for and that I'd just be wasting its no-doubt excellent hi-tech qualities.

Is there anything I'm missing here?

Answer;

Nope you are not missing anything Castrol Tection Turbomax is the correct spec for your Ford application 15W40 ACEA E5 oil, Cyril Snare at Mermaid had some funny ideas about oils, and Viv Cox is still all tangled up in US SAE stuff, we have been trying to break free of SAE for years.